Lawsuit: Best Buy has “anti-price matching policy”

Best Buy's alleged "price match guarantee" is less of a guarantee and more of …

Best Buy may be forced to change its price matching policy, or at least be more transparent about its practices. A lawsuit against the company alleging false advertising and deceptive practices has been approved as a class action by a US District Court in New York, giving the plaintiffs more steam in their fight against the big box retailer. Even more interesting, however, is that the process of approving the suit has exposed some of Best Buy's dirty laundry.

The original lawsuit was brought by New York resident Thomas Jermyn in January of 2008 and was granted class action status as of last week. In his suit, Jermyn targets Best Buy's "price match guarantee" as a ploy to lure unsuspecting customers into the stores while actively practicing an "Anti-Price Matching Policy" among managers and employees.

Savvy deal hunters in the audience are already aware that trying to get a real price match on something at Best Buy can be an exercise in futility. It's not uncommon to hear anecdotal grumblings that Best Buy will find every excuse to not adhere to its publicly-advertised policy—the store is out of (or low on) stock, Best Buy doesn't match Internet prices, model numbers don't match up, etc. However, according to court documents, these instances apparently aren't just a result of clueless retail drones—it appears Best Buy actively encourages employees to use these very excuses to avoid offering the customer a good deal.

"What is the first thing we do when a customer comes in to our humble box brandishing a competitor’s ad asking for a price match? We attempt to build a case against the price match," reads an internal company memo from October of 2006, which is quoted in the court documents. "Let's walk through the 'Refused Price Match Greatest Hits:' Not same model? Not in stock at the competitor? Do we have free widget with purchase? Is it from a warehouse club (they have membership fees, you know)? Limited Quantities? That competitor is across town? We’ve got financing! Is it an internet price? It’s below cost! What about my NOP?"

Best Buy's defense for the existence of this document is that its author is a "long-standing employee with a sense of humor." Further evidence provided in the complaint belies that claim. Numerous Best Buy customers are cited as saying the retailer refused their requests on multiple occasions, or in cases where they already purchased the item, Best Buy told them to return it and pay a hefty restocking fee if they wanted to buy from a competitor with a lower price. This, of course, defeats the entire purpose of trying to get a price match in the first place.

Additionally, none of these technicalities are mentioned in the public-facing version of Best Buy's policy. "If you are about to make a purchase and discover a lower advertised price offered by a local retail competitor on the same available brand and model, let us know and we'll match that price on the spot," reads Best Buy's website. "Already bought? We'll refund you the price difference from our own sale price, or 110% of the difference from our competitor's sale price, during the return and exchange period on your product." Questions on that page, such as "What is considered a local retail competitor?" come with ambiguous answers that seem to contradict the internal memo encouraging employees to deny matches on the basis that the competitor is "across town."

At best, the retailer is extremely confused about the meaning of its own price match guarantee and has no idea how to treat customers. At worst? We leave that as an exercise to the reader. Either way, the end result is a group of buyers who are done feeling jerked around and want to make Best Buy pay for it. HD Guru, which has been following the story closely, spoke with the attorney representing Jermyn, Michael Braunstein, who said that readers who have been refused a price match should contact him by e-mail or phone (mbraunstein@kgglaw.com or 845-356-2570). Though this particular lawsuit is limited to New York residents, those outside of New York are encouraged to voice their concerns as well.

Further reading:

Search PACER for case number 1:08-cv-00214-CM-DCF in the Southern District of New York